To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

157th Division (People's Republic of China)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

157th Division (1948–49)
Active1948.11 - 1949.8
CountryPeople's Republic of China
BranchPeople's Liberation Army
Part of44th Corps
EngagementsChinese Civil War

The 157th Division(Chinese: 第157师) was created in November 1948 under the Regulation of the Redesignations of All Organizations and Units of the Army, issued by Central Military Commission on November 1, 1948,[1] basing on the 12th Independent Division of Northeastern People's Liberation Army, formed in September.

The division was a part of 44th Corps. Under the flag of 157th division it took part in the Chinese civil war. In August 1949 the division was disbanded.

As of disbandment the division was composed of:

  • 469th Regiment;
  • 470th Regiment;
  • 471st Regiment.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    16 569
    1 005
    288 609
    19 271
    4 155
  • ✪ Samantha Power | US Foreign Policy from the Inside Out || Radcliffe Institute
  • ✪ Leadership & Justice—Managing Rewards at the Top, Prof. Paul Woodruff, UT Austin
  • ✪ Grundeinkommen - ein Kulturimpuls
  • ✪ JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES: The Economic Consequences of the Peace FULL Audiobook
  • ✪ Trump's State of the Union 2019 Full Speech (ENGLISH SUBTITLES)


[MUSIC PLAYING] - Good afternoon, everyone. Glad to have you here. I'm Liz Cohen. I'm dean at the Radcliffe Institute. And I'm so pleased to welcome all of you to Samantha Power's much anticipated lecture, US Foreign Policy From the Inside Out. As Harvard's Institute for Advanced Study, Radcliffe embraces a dual mission to foster and to share transformative ideas across disciplines. And we do this by convening and supporting scholars, scientists, artists, and professionals working at the forefront of their fields and by organizing a full calendar of public programming, including lectures, conferences, performances, and exhibitions. Now, today, we have the opportunity to hear from someone who has grappled with many of the most daunting issues facing the United States and the world and who has done so from a number of different vantage points. As a journalist, a scholar, an activist, and most recently, as a senior executive branch official, Samantha Power has been on the front lines, so to speak, throughout her career in foreign policy. As a result of her varied experiences, Samantha is well-placed to explore challenging questions around how to balance means and ends, pragmatism and idealism, and competing priorities in determining the appropriate role for the United States on the world stage. These questions defy easy analysis, and yet, they run through much of Samantha's work. In her first book, entitled A Problem from Hell, America and the Age of Genocide, Samantha indicts the US foreign policy establishment for falling short of our nation's ideals by failing to act against genocide at critical moments in embattled hotspots like Cambodia, Iraq, Bosnia, and Rwanda. More than that, Samantha charges that the US distanced itself from these conflicts which fell outside of its narrow national interest by deliberately sidestepping moral responsibility. A Problem from Hell won the 2002 National Book Critics Circle Award for nonfiction and the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for nonfiction. Samantha's second book, Chasing the Flame, Sergio Vieira de Mello and the Fight to Save the World, takes on difficult questions about the proper role of international diplomacy and the proper conditions for intervention in a world where nations' moral and strategic objectives often compete. Here, she explores the personal and professional evolution of Sergio Vieira de Mello, a Brazilian-born diplomat who served in the United Nations for more than three decades and who died tragically in a 2003 suicide bombing while acting as Secretary-General Kofi Annan's special representative in Iraq. Chasing the Flame was also the basis for an award-winning HBO documentary entitled Sergio. In Samantha's telling, de Mello began his career as someone who would freely and forcefully denounce evil and injustice wherever he saw it, but who then went on to fully embrace not only the necessity of negotiation, but also the United Nations' powerful inclination towards non-judgment. He did this to such an extent that some found him obsequious. De Mello even earned the nickname Serbio for his perceived closeness to Slobodan Milosevic during the Balkan War of the early 1990s. Eventually, we learn, de Mello struck a balance between the poles of denouncement and non-judgement that Samantha holds up as a model from which our country can learn. I quote her prescription. "Be in the room, don't be afraid of talking to your adversaries, but don't bracket what happened before you entered the room. Don't black-box history. Don't check your principles at the door." I suspect this kind of principled pragmatism combined with humility and what Samantha has described as-- and I quote her-- "an emboldened sense of responsibility" has animated much of her own efforts in recent years at the senior-most levels of US foreign policy making. Her policy positions, as many analysts have noted, do not track with any particular partisan agenda. Moreover, Samantha is well-known as someone who presses her case with both force and clarity. And I might add here something that her fellow fellows, I think, will agree with, that we in the Radcliffe community have had the honor and pleasure of observing Samantha in action, as she has interrogated her fellow fellows on an impressively broad range of topics with the same intensity and insight. Whatever you may think of the current administration or the previous one, it should be clear to all that we face new and often unprecedented global challenges with profound strategic and human implications. I am thrilled to have someone as expert, as experienced, and as wise as Samantha here today to help us reflect on these issues from the inside out, to use her language, and to suggest a way forward. Samantha is the 2017-2018 Perrin Moorhead Grayson and Bruns Grayson Fellow here at the Radcliffe Institute. And I'm happy to see Penny Grayson here with us today. I'm grateful to the Graysons for their generous support of the Institute and to Penny for her advice as a member of our Deans Advisory Council. In addition to Samantha's Radcliffe fellowship this year, she is on the faculty of both the Harvard Law School and the Harvard Kennedy School. Before returning to Harvard last fall, Samantha was a US permanent representative to the United Nations and a member of President Barack Obama's cabinet. She also served as special assistant to the president and senior director for Multinational-- Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights on the president's National Security Council, where she focused on UN reform, LGBT and women's rights, religious freedom, human trafficking, and democracy and human rights. Samantha was the founding executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School. And in addition to her two books that I mentioned earlier, she is the co-editor of another book entitled The Unquiet American, Richard Holbrooke in the World, an examination of the career and writings of another diplomat Samantha admired greatly. Samantha's other writings have appeared in such publications as The Atlantic, the New Republic, The New York Review of Books, and The New Yorker. I will just add, before making a final comment, that I want to alert you to the fact that a film that features Samantha and her last year in the Obama administration is now out in the world, available through YouTube and I'm sure other-- how else? Lots of different ways, and the Kendall theater, too. So you can see it at home or you can see it in public. But we highly recommend it. Here's how the afternoon will go. After Samantha delivers her lecture, there'll be time for a brief Q&A. We will put a microphone in the center aisle. We invite you to line up to ask your question. Please introduce yourself before you do so. And after the final question, I invite you to join us for a reception next door at Fay House. Now, it gives me great pleasure to welcome Samantha Power to the podium. [APPLAUSE] - Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Hello, everybody. Great to be here. And thank you so much, Liz, for that introduction. I'd like to start by offering a fulsome thank you to Radcliffe, the Radcliffe Institute, to the Grayson family for having me here as a fellow along with such other amazing people that I've had a chance to listen to and learn from. I was incredibly privileged to get to serve in the Obama administration for eight years. But one of the disadvantages of being in national security 24/7 is it tends to narrow your perspective. And coming here and learning about facial-recognition technology and pirates and cichlid fish reminds me and affirms for me why it's so amazing to be on a campus, and especially this amazing campus. So thank you. It's wonderful to see so many people here today who could be doing a lot of different things. So thank you for coming out. I have spent my time thus far-- I can't believe it's slipping away, but trying to understand the journey that Liz described, a journey that took me from being, initially, a journalist and activist and academic into the messy world of politics, and specifically into Barack Obama's Senate office, into his presidential campaign, which I had to leave briefly, and finally into the White House, and most amazingly, as his ambassador to the United Nations in his second term. In coming here today and having the chance to speak at Harvard for the first time since I've returned and to do my-- make my Radcliffe presentation, I considered a lot of different topics within the broad rubric of foreign policy from the inside out because I'm exploring a very broad range of topics. The question I get asked the most about, which may come up in the discussion period, is the red line in Syria. There's a lot to say about the person currently occupying the Oval Office and the future of the liberal international order. I could have gone in that direction. But given the broader reckoning going on in our country and around the world, I thought I would actually use this occasion here at Radcliffe, of all places, to reflect on a question that I increasingly get, which is, what was it like, as a woman, doing foreign policy in the US government and at the UN? And I stress, because I am a professor here, but this is not an academic lecture. It's not my normal analytic fare. It is one person's personal experiences from which I try to draw, also, some lessons regarding how we go forward in the face of many of the challenges that are being discussed and aired, but many of which are not yet being addressed. So let me start a little bit at the beginning. Before I began working in the US government, I will admit that I had never been all that self-conscious about being a woman in the workplace. And this is partly because I was raised by a very single-minded Irish mother, Vera Delaney, who overcame such severe hurdles and prejudices herself to do what she loved, which was to practice medicine, that I compared my lucky life, which was very privileged, certainly, in comparison to some of the challenges she faced. This is her. This is me and my mother. [INAUDIBLE] great. She's really great. But not long after she married my father and had me, my mother became a doctor, at a time when married women made up less than 10% of the Irish workforce. I grew up on stories of her experiences in the medical profession and in the-- in the world, which often weren't pretty-- but they never deterred her, she was full speed ahead-- like the one when she tried to acquire custody of my younger brother and me so she could bring us to the United States in order to be able to deepen her training as a kidney doctor. And in the courtroom, the justice mused out loud about my mother-- who at that point, had a PhD in biochemistry and medical degree-- what right has this woman to be so educated? [LAUGHTER] I know. But these are the kinds of stories I grew up on. So I thought, who's got problems? My first real job was as a 23-year-old war correspondent in the Balkans. Now, of course, it was men, mainly, who orchestrated and fought the wars that I was covering. Interestingly, though, among the posse of freelancers and full-time correspondents who gravitated to the Balkans, it was women war correspondents who really, at that time, I think, stood out, everyone from Christiane Amanpour of CNN, of course, to Maggie O'Kane of the Guardian, who uncovered concentration camps in northern Bosnia, Kate Adie of the BBC, Carol Williams of the LA Times. These were amazing role models for me and my girlfriends, who are still my closest friends, to have at that stage. And although the culture that we encountered in the Balkans was patriarchal in the extreme, although not compared to what some of our people here I know have gone through-- but with very deep-rooted sexism, writing for the Western media in Bosnia in the 1990s was a far cry for women from what Martha Gellhorn had gone through to try to cover the D-Day invasion of World War II. Some of you know the story where she had to hide in the toilet of a hospital ship and to sneak ashore with an ambulance crew in order to cover the landing. I can't be scientific about the difference that gender made in Bosnia. And it is even conceivable that we women correspondents, of whom there were many, actually enjoyed better access to the people and events we wished to cover because the local gunmen so underestimated us. But that said, I also don't know a single woman colleague who wasn't, at one point, caught off guard by a romantic come-on from a source or left stammering her way out of an unexpected advance. I must admit, again, that I had not reflected much on the role that gender played in my career at all, really, until recently, when hundreds of brave women, and a few men, began coming forward to share their personal experiences of harassment, predation, assault, exposing decades of toxic and illegal behavior by people in positions of power. Like everything in this stage-- in this age, I should say, it has a hashtag, #MeToo. But unlike so many other issues that have burst into the news and then just as quickly disappeared, #MeToo has become more impactful on the national and the global conversation than I think any of us could have imagined when we first read about Harvey Weinstein, for example, last fall. These silence breakers, as Time magazine called its 2017 person of the year, have jumpstarted a long-overdue reckoning. It is reaching across professions and party lines, shining a light on the invisible daily struggles endured for too long by our mentors, our teachers, friends, colleagues, neighbors, grandmothers, mothers, and even our own daughters. It is no wonder, then, that this reckoning has also reached the field of national security and foreign policy. Two months ago, in November, 223 women who work in or on US national security, including many close colleagues of mine from the Obama administration, signed an open letter that they titled #MeTooNatSec. You don't have to read the letter. I do recommend looking for it online. But that's just to give you a hint of the letter. The letter is addressed to the entire national security community. And it was quite measured in tone. It made no sensational claims about specific abusers, nor did it call out any particular government agency, declaring, quote, "We, too, are survivors of sexual harassment, assault, and abuse or know others who are," end quote. Ambassadors, professors, diplomats, intelligence analysts, military officers, think-tankers, and leading experts from every part of the foreign policy community delivered a stinging assessment. And I'll just read you part of the letter. "Many women are held back or driven from the national security field by men who use their power to assault at one end of the spectrum and perpetuate, sometimes unconsciously, environments that silence, demean, belittle, or neglect women at the other. Assault is the progression of the same behaviors that permit us to be denigrated, interrupted, shut out-- [COUGH] --excuse me, shut out, and shut up. These behaviors incubate a permissive environment where sexual harassment and assault take hold." So that's just a part of the letter. So this letter only received fleeting media coverage, but it did generate significant attention in the foreign policy world. And among those reacting were the 10 Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who forwarded this letter to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson with a warning that a failure to remedy the problems it described would have what the senators called a deep and negative affect on US national security. Well beyond the letter, in recent months-- again, a little beneath the radar compared to some of what's in the press each day-- women in national security have come forward to share their experiences of indignities and abuses, large and small, themselves overcoming or combating, overriding the longstanding concern that speaking out would torpedo their careers. I'll offer just two stark examples. One widely-shared frustration is the demeaning, often flippant attitude men in the national security realm have expressed toward the professional advancement or achievement of their female colleagues. Heather Hurlburt, who is a former speechwriter in the White House and the State Department, recalled being hired for her dream job, only to be told by her boss, quote, "We held this job open for a woman, so I hired you and dated the other finalist," end quote. Not ideal. Others have spoken to the dangerous culture of entitlement and impunity that prevails in a profession that entails, often, long foreign trips and long hours. Rosa Brooks-- some of you may have seen this-- a defense official in the Obama administration, described a harrowing experience from earlier in her career with a senior foreign service Officer who, as she put it, quote, "grabbed me and shoved his tongue forcibly down my throat as we walked along a deserted canal in Venice, returning from an international law conference. It took several minutes of skirmishing and several firm threats to shove him into the canal before he stopped pawing at me," end quote. Now, this problem is obviously widespread well beyond the national security community, as we all know, and certainly well beyond the United States. Just last week, in fact, the Guardian published a devastating expose describing pervasive sexual harassment, assault, and retaliation across the UN, often perpetrated by senior officials. A former investigator for the UN's internal affairs division told the paper that he routinely witnessed cover-ups and that impunity for offenders was the norm. As he put it, "the only rule is not to publicly embarrass the Organization," capital "O," Organization. Taking stock of the many experiences shared by female national security professionals, the political scientist, Dan Drezner, described women in this field as facing what he called a gender tax, something that our male counterparts don't shoulder. Speaking more personally, I think it is fair to say that the first time I began to focus on what it meant to be a woman in the workplace was when I started to work in Washington. And let me be clear. On that score and on many others, I feel extremely fortunate to have worked for President Obama, the son of a trailblazing mother, the husband of a woman who was once his boss, and the dedicated father of two daughters who has said proudly, "It's important that their dad is a feminist, because now that's what they expect of men." In his eight years as president-- you miss him, don't you? I know, sorry-- Obama appointed the highest number of women to cabinet-level positions in US history. And I must say-- and this mattered to me a lot-- he always gave the impression that he wasn't scurrying around with women in binders or whatever it was that we heard about, that someone had to make this huge effort in order to find talented women. He projected the sense that he was hiring the people who were the best for the job, who happened to be women. Nonetheless, in 2009, while women ran key government agencies, at the White House itself, where I would work for four years, men held 2/3 of the top jobs. And this wasn't a new phenomenon. It was not until the Eisenhower administration in 1953 that women began to work in the West Wing as more than secretaries. The culture at the White House bore similarities to office dynamics across this great country, lots of sports metaphors and sports outings to play basketball or golf, ample "dude" references, and lots and lots of swearing. I was fortunate to play basketball. So I had opportunities to do business with senior officials outside of our long hours in the office. I won't speak to the swearing part. The most vivid occasion on which gender dynamics at the White House surfaced publicly came in December 2012 during negotiations over the so-called fiscal cliff when the White House released a photo of President Obama seated in the Oval Office with his back to the camera, giving direction to his political, economics, and communications teams, as such. When critics pounced on this photo-- someone released this photo. Someone very senior would have released this photo, not thinking that there was anything weird about this photo. So we start with that. So when critics saw the photo, the White House pointed out something even worse than releasing the photo itself. Some of you may remember. Does anybody remember that, in fact, if you look closely, you will see, behind Dan Pfeiffer in his brown corduroys and blue shirt, Valerie Jarrett's leg. [LAUGHTER] She was there all along. And literally, you had statements, people on and off the record, coming out saying, oh, no, it's fine. Look, there's her knee. You could just see in the-- Anyway, so you can imagine the reaction to this. Jodi Kantor of the New York Times tweeted "Jarrett's leg as metaphor." Now, President Obama, the enlightened guy that he is, of course, invited senior women on the White House staff to his office or he had dinners with them so that they could vent, share frustrations, get a sense of what could be done differently. And I think that more self-awareness and deliberateness meant that women were called on more often-- and sometimes even when they weren't raising their hands, which happens not only at Harvard campus, but within the White House as well-- and also affirming the work of his women advisors. But I think, as we all know, numbers matter. And it was significant that in the second term, President Obama and his very activist chief of staff, Denis McDonough, went out of their way to try to ensure that women occupied an equal share of the top White House staff jobs. And in fact, in 2015, the White House released a not-so-subtle photo of the president conferring with his advisors. [INAUDIBLE], yes. And Obama's photographer, Pete Souza, later commented, "This is a full-frame picture. I guess you'd say I was trying to make a point." So at the National Security Council, which is where I worked-- it was part of the White House, but its own world-- in the early years of the Obama administration, men held all the top jobs, national security advisor, deputy national security advisor, homeland security advisor, chief of staff, strategic communications advisor, and speechwriter. The senior staff were known as-- are known, I think, maybe that's one thing that's still intact-- are still known, perhaps, as senior directors, NSC senior directors. And my first year, I was one of six women who were senior directors out of 26. That gives you some sense of the ratio. One Wednesday toward the end of our first year, one of my senior women colleagues-- it was a fellow senior director-- invited me and a few other women to come to her office for a glass of wine. This quick break turned into a 90-minute release. And after a half an hour together, each of us called back to our assistance to ask apologetically if they could move our next appointments owing to urgent national security business. We discussed not only our experience of work at the NSC and some of our frustrations, but also what we were working on, what we were proud of, what we hoped to achieve. This first pretty spontaneous invitation turned into a sacred weekly Wednesday group. Those of us with kids talked about the chaos of our juggling. The single women among us talked about their latest crushes. Each of us gave each other a quality of attention that was too often lacking in the transactional world of Washington. And outside of these gatherings, I think a change crept into the way that we acted in our larger policy discussions. Without ever discussing it or making any conscious shift-- at least that I'm aware of-- we reflexively supported one another in meetings. Now, this didn't mean we agreed with one another. Some of my most spirited arguments at the NSC were with my fellow women senior directors. We were not always on the same page, by any means. But we engaged one another's arguments, not simply leaving them hanging in the air, which happened too often in larger group discussions. As we compared notes during what became known, again, as this-- the Wednesday group, I was struck both by how self-conscious my colleagues were as women role models to younger women and by the lengths to which these women, the senior directors, went to seek out and hire young women to work directly under them as directors. And I just have to stress how challenging this is to do in the world of foreign policy and national security. You really have to fight gravity in order to have the kind of equality of representation that we seek. And why is that? The pipeline, the so-called pipeline of women eligible to go into senior foreign policy positions in government is very skewed. In academia, a key feeder to these top national security jobs, the ratio of men to women professors who focus on US foreign policy back when I was in the Obama-- starting in the Obama administration was 3 to 1. Of the top 10 American think tanks concentrating on international affairs, just one was then run by a woman. When CNN, Fox, and MSNBC-- so the range-- had foreign policy segments, they chose male commentators a remarkable 80% of the time. And so even though in recent memory Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Hillary Clinton have run the State Department, we can't forget that until 1971, women Foreign Service Officers at State had to retire if they got married. And only 9% of US ambassadors have been women since the country's-- since our country's founding. More often than not-- and this remains true today-- the women ambassadors are posted to countries considered less central to US national security. No woman has yet served as ambassador-- US ambassador to China, to Russia, Israel, Turkey, or Afghanistan. And I think it's fair to say the same basic story applies across government agencies, like CIA and the Defense Department. I came to understand that hiring men and women in roughly equal numbers at the NSC really required pushing water uphill, slowing down the hiring process at just the time that, given the workload, you were inclined to speed it up, and proactively reaching out to women to urge them to throw their hats in the ring, or trying to appeal to them and to overcome the doubts that they have about even taking jobs of this nature given some of the reputational issues that also existed. Jim Clapper, President Obama's Director of National Intelligence, made the case for more proactive hiring this way. He said, "Over my 53-plus years in the intelligence business--" that's a lot of years-- "I've watched women rise to leadership positions all around me. And having women in leadership roles is more critical than people on the outside would think. We have found that with almost all the major intelligence failures we've had, diversity of thought might have saved us," end quote. And speaking about the equally troubling absence of people of color in the field of national security or foreign policy, President Obama's National Security Advisor, Susan Rice, put it perfectly. "Our national security agencies have not yet drawn fully on the strengths of our great nation. In the halls of power, in the faces of our national security leaders, America is still not fully reflected." And that was before the cabinet came to look like founding fathers. So fortunately for me, even though there were far more men than women at the NSC, as I've indicated, I rarely found myself the only woman in the room. And there were all-- again, all these ways in which I think we found a way to reinforce one another. And the culture did evolve, importantly, over time. Things were very different when I got to the United Nations, when I became President Obama's second ambassador to the United Nations, where you really often were the only woman in the room. So since World War II when the UN was created, enshrining within its founding charter the critical importance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, there has never been a woman Secretary-General. And the percentage of women ambassadors representing the various member states, which-- and this would just reflect the dynamics within the countries that comprise the UN-- has never exceeded 25%. Now, I was really lucky, because I didn't represent any old country at the UN. I represented the United States, the country that hosts the UN on its soil. We are the largest financial donor to the UN by leaps and bounds. We have the veto. One of five countries at the UN have the veto. We bring our policy initiatives there. As a result, I think it's fair to say that over my time at the UN, the salience of my Americanness was more relevant or evident to other countries than me being a woman was. And so I think I suffered very few of the kinds of slights that I know from my colleagues, women colleagues, that they suffered. Madeleine Albright liked to joke, quote, "It used to be that the only way a woman could truly make her foreign policy views felt was by marrying a diplomat and then pouring tea on an offending ambassador's lap." By the time I assumed my position in 2013, a trio of amazingly strong women had served at the UN, representing the United States before me, Jeane Kirkpatrick, 1981 to 1985, Albright herself, '93 to '97 before she became our first woman secretary of state, and Ambassador Rice, 2009 to 2013. So when I got to New York, I read the biographies by Jeane Kirkpatrick and about Jeane Kirkpatrick and by Secretary Albright herself. And I think when you read biographies of women who've served in prior generations, you really see how much has changed for the better. And I'm just going to give you a flavor of that here today. Jeane Kirkpatrick, raised in a small town in Oklahoma, ducked out of an early stint in government to raise her three sons while she was competing her doctorate at Columbia. She was discovered in 1979-- that's the year I came to this country from Ireland-- after Dick Allen, Ronald Reagan's foreign policy advisor in the presidential campaign, gave Reagan an essay that she had written in commentary, which you all probably are familiar with, called "Dictatorships and Double Standards." Reagan, who had just announced that he was running for president, read the essay on a flight from Washington to Los Angeles and called Allen very excitedly when he got home. "What you gave me to read was extraordinary," Reagan said. "Who is this guy, Jeane Kirkpatrick?" Kirkpatrick was almost always the only woman in the room at the UN and in Washington. During her four years in New York at the UN, she was one of just three women ambassadors out of the then 157 UN member states, three out of 157. She served with also a woman ambassador from Liberia and from the Seychelles. The Soviet Union, just to give you an indicator, has had, actually, 11 ambassadors in their mission. The United States has five. Soviet Union had 11, none a woman. She later recalled how people interacted with her or treated her. She said, quote, "it rocked them. I think they just regarded me as a very odd creature," end quote. Now, the Washington glass ceiling she shattered is, in many ways, just as important, if not more important. She was the first woman in history to have a seat at the table in the high-level debates. Now we'd call it the Principals Committee. Then they had another name for it. But basically, your national security cabinet, first woman ever. Again, I was new to the United States, an immigrant with my mother and my younger brother. But a photo that really stuck in my mind from when I was a kid-- I know, it's amazing-- was this one, and seeing Kirkpatrick there among the suits at the center of the shot. Now, soon after-- soon after she was chosen UN ambassador, a friend of hers reported that Secretary of State Alexander Haig had reacted to the news of her appointment by exclaiming, "I don't know how anybody expects that I will work with that bitch." Secretary Haig, who famously craved the diplomatic limelight himself, accused Kirkpatrick of being temperamental-- sound familiar?-- mentally and emotionally incapable of thinking clearly, especially during the Falklands Crisis, when their relationship came to a head. Even those who respected Kirkpatrick-- of whom there were many at the time-- treated her differently, I think, it's fair to say. In the spring of 1983, Chief of Staff Mike Deaver told her, "Everyone notices you have influence with President Reagan." When Kirkpatrick shrugged, Deaver went on, "No, no, no. Everyone notices. He always listens when you speak. He looks at you and his eyes light up. Maybe it's because you're a woman." Kirkpatrick shot back, "Maybe it's because he's interested in foreign policy." President Clinton appointed Madeleine Albright to the UN ambassadorship less than a decade later. By this time, she was not the sole woman in the traditional cabinet photo. For Albright, also, sitting behind the placard in New York that said United States of America had special resonance. She was a Czech immigrant, but a refugee. Her refugee family had come to this country. And she remains, to this day, incredibly grateful to this country for welcoming her in and very outspoken about, now, the curbs on incoming refugee flow. Albright married young, three days after her college graduation, and took the long road, 13 years, to completing her doctorate at Georgetown while she raised her three daughters. She was frustrated that the skills she was honing as a multi-tasking mother carried little weight in the professional world. As she would later put it, "Senior vice president for communications sounds so much more important than 'put out school newsletter.'" Albright did not hold a full-time job until she was 39 years old. When I was nominated to become UN ambassador and I went to see Secretary Albright, she told me that when she had been at the UN, she had convened a group for women ambassadors. And then, when she was there-- again, there were more countries in the world as well than when Kirkpatrick had been there-- there were 183 countries. And only seven of those countries were represented by women. So Albright branded her group the G7. Not the group of seven, the girls' seven. And they traded gossip. They shared family experiences. And they really, I think importantly, became a cross-regional lobby on behalf of women's issues, even managing to get two women judges onto the bench of the new UN war crimes tribunal, which was just being set up. Now, I had way more female company when I got to New York in 2013. I was the one of 37 women permanent representatives out of 193 countries, again, more countries than in '93. But that's still just 20% overall, which is quite similar, actually, to our own Congress, the ratio. And again, the UN tends to be reflective of how things are within national systems. Now, on the most powerful UN body, which is the 15-member UN Security Council, I had the chance in 2014 to serve with four other women. There were five of us-- the United States, Nigeria, Luxembourg, Jordan, and Lithuania. We were the largest female contingent on the council in the seven-decade history of the UN. And though we only accounted-- we didn't all sit together, actually. This was a panel. But maybe we should have. Though we only accounted for a third of the membership on the premiere UN body responsible for making international law, deciding on the use of force, sanctions, et cetera, the excitement around the UN was palpable in this period where we had the chance to serve together. Young women would pull me aside in the restroom, in the ladies restroom, to say how proud they were to see five women duking it out in the usually male Security Council chamber. And the longer I served, though, also apart from how it looked and the signal that that sent, which I'll come back to-- the longer I served, the more evidence I saw of the functional value, as well, of this gender parity. Having more women on the council, just simply put, changed the nature of our deliberations. We weren't perfect at listening to one another, but I think it's fair to say we listened to one another more. With more women colleagues on the council, we also talked more, as it happened, about sexual violence and about the importance of including women in peace processes, from which they are so often shut out. Nonetheless, even with us there-- and we were a formidable group. I mean, the character of the individuals involved were very, very strong in each case. Just even having that presence didn't, of course, stop our some of our male colleagues from saying completely crazy things behind closed doors. On several occasions, male ambassadors questioned whether well-documented cases of rape as an atrocity in war had occurred. And I'll just quote you from one of them. "Why would the soldiers have done this when they have their wives to come home to?" one of my African colleagues asked. "Where's the proof? If these rapes really happened, any woman victim would want to talk about it. They wouldn't care if security forces were present." So I asked-- this is the advantage, again, of at least being in the room where it happens. I asked, oh, are you speaking from your vast personal experience of having been raped and then being asked what happened while security forces affiliated with your rapist leered over you? Is that how you are an authority on this matter? The Russian ambassador, memorably-- it's become the stuff of legend in the small circle that is New York, but criticized the UN's Yemen envoy for spending too much of his precious time on the ground talking to women. "Your job is to make peace and that is a hard enough job," the Russian ambassador said. "Why are you wasting your time having meetings with women who aren't even involved in the conflict?" That's an important point. So let's spend all our time with the men who are fueling the conflict and won't stop. In each of these instances and many others, the heads of the women ambassadors present and some of the male ambassadors, of course, as well would snap to attention. And each of us would fling our hand up in the air to seek the floor to challenge what had been said. Unfortunately, in 2016, the number of women ambassadors dwindled back down to 1 out of 15. There she is. That's me. And it remained that way until just a few weeks ago when Karen Pierce became the first woman in history to represent the United Kingdom at the United Nations, joining now Ambassador Nikki Haley. In my years in government, as I alluded to earlier, I developed a heightened appreciation for symbols. And one of the most moving photographs taken during the Obama presidency was this one of Jacob Philadelphia-- this was 2009-- just tentatively reaching up to just-- to feel, to see, to be sure, could it really be the case that this African-American man with hair just like this little boy's was, in fact, President of the United States? So what we see matters hugely, changes our sense of what's possible. And when I would sit in the open chamber of the Security Council as the only woman permanent representative, I would often see the school tour groups that would come into the UN in New York. And they're escorted into the viewing gallery. They sit there. They watch 10, 15 minutes of the debate. And I just found myself wondering, what must these children think? They look down at this famous horseshoe where world history has sometimes been made. And is the ambition of these girls altered by the sense that there's one out of 15 people as a woman at this table, and the boys' sense-- for both-- of what is normal shaped again by that picture? So needless to say, in the 21st century, it should not and should never have been seen as normal for women to have only one seat at that table or any table. So I am working on a book about my experiences in government provisionally titled The Education of an Idealist, a title that will likely change, because why is it only idealists who get educated, I ask you, but nonetheless, gives you a sense of what I'm trying to track. But in part, because of all that is going on around us now and the bravery of women across so many domains, I am asking myself questions that I haven't really asked before. Has my professional life been impacted more by these issues than I recognized? Was I, at times, dismissed or underestimated because of my gender? Have I myself blocked out various dimensions of the problem, and in so doing, failed to do as much as I should have myself in the positions that I've had to combat this phenomenon? And how can I equip my young daughter to handle what lies ahead for her? So I'm still wrestling with these personal questions. And I don't have great answers yet. But I have, for the purposes of today, at least, tried to distill what are the lessons for now, at least as I can offer them up. So here are a few ideas, at least, humbly put, tentatively put. But first, I think women have a wonderful opportunity and responsibility to have the backs of other women. I tried to use my perch at the UN to push for women's voices to be heard around the world. Often, I was unsuccessful. But at times, we were able to line the moons up in a way that I think mattered. One example is that I launched a campaign called #FreeThe20, which was aimed at securing the release of 20 women political prisoners around the world. These are voices of women that were being silenced in Egypt, Ethiopia, Venezuela, China, a whole bunch of countries. And here were the 20 women. I would hang-- each day for 20 days, we hung a portrait of one of the women and profiled them. And social media and the State Department and the White House got behind it, as did members of Congress. And I think, thanks to a lot of advocacy, and particularly that by outside groups who have nothing to do with the US government-- but in the end, together, 16 of the 20 prisoners we profiled gained their freedom. The other thing I did was-- and, again, much of what I did was ineffective. What I'm about to describe felt like there was a power to it, but very, very hard to know, certainly in the short term, but just a simple thing that all of us have in our power to do today, which is just while traveling abroad as UN ambassador, just insisting on every one of my trips that I would just meet with young girls in difficult situations and just talk to them about their aspirations. And most of these girls, you can imagine, had never met a high-ranking female official. In Mexico, I met with a group of underprivileged girls in a soccer league, played soccer with them. In Nigeria, I met with a group of schoolgirls from Chibok, which many of you know from the news who-- these were girls who had been captured by Boko Haram, but then mercifully had escaped in the early part of their captivity. In the war-ravaged north of Sri Lanka, meeting with Buddhist and Muslim girls who were learning how to live together again. And in Israel and the Palestinian territories, sitting down with honor students who dreamed of becoming engineers, architects, and even a few politicians. So, I mean, the hurdles that these girls faced were unimaginable. But again, the ferocity of their determination and discipline left me and the members of my team completely blown away and inspired. We still have a huge amount of work to do in ensuring women and girls abroad and at home have the confidence to pursue the ambitions that they think up for themselves. I'll give you an American statistic that's quite jarring. American men are both more likely to see themselves as qualified to run for political office and much more likely to receive encouragement from family and friends to do so. A pair of studies-- one from 2001, one 2011-- found that men were almost 60% more likely than women to describe themselves as very qualified to be a candidate, even though the men and women surveyed were both equally experienced in terms of fundraising, policy knowledge, et cetera. A follow-on report that focused on young people similarly found that female college students are less likely than their male peers to feel that they have what it takes to run for office. And that's, again, more recent. This self-doubt manifests itself in a whole bunch of very subtle ways. A fascinating survey-- oh, you can't actually see it-- of Americans age 15 to 24 was released just two weeks ago. And it confirmed what we have all been seeing. Young women distinguished themselves as much more politically engaged than their male counterparts in 2017. And that was on everything from volunteering to donating money to attending demonstrations. At the same time, a much higher percentage of women cited a lack of knowledge about the issues or a fear of undue criticism as explanations for why they decided not to be politically active. As teachers, parents, and mentors, we've got to somehow find a way to continue to narrow and close, in the end, this confidence gap. Second, if we want to make change, we who share a desire to see change must embrace politics in all of its messiness. I don't know. That's sort of the biggest realization I have on all national security issues, and certainly on this issue, anything related to gender. There's really no obvious door number two. Politics, politics, politics. And here, again, some good news, EMILY's List, which for more than three decades has been tracking the number of women who have come forward to run for office-- EMILY's List, as you know, has existed for 32 years and it helps recruit and elect pro-choice women. But it reported that in 2016, the 32-year-old record was shattered, that 920 women had come forward seeking information about how to run for office. Now, in 2017, the year that just closed out, the 920 was-- looks like the 19th century, 22,000 women reached out. So that just gives you a sense, like that was the prior record. And that's captured in a lot of what we read about, of course, in terms of women's engagement. Between 2016 and now, the number of women running for congressional or statewide offices has doubled. And in those crucial races for control of the House, so far there are 389 women running, the most female candidates ever seeking to become a US representative. And women are not only running. They are winning. In Virginia, 11 of the 14 women candidates for the House of Delegates backed by EMILY's List won their races, 11 out of 14. Many of these women were firsts for the Virginia House, the first Latina, the first Asian-American, the first lesbian, and the first transgender woman. Signing ceremony looks a little different than often. But we must acknowledge, of course, that change is slow. And incremental gains never seem to be enough. At the current rate of progress, without knowing, now, the outcome of 2018, where so many more women are getting involved, but-- so putting that to one side. But it would, unless that makes a major difference, take another 75 years to achieve gender parity in Congress and 152 years for state governors. Now, that's not what it's going to take. It's going to take a lot less than that. But that's if we were to extrapolate on the basis of where we are now. Shelly Simmons, a name you might remember from the news of the last couple months, tied for her Virginia seat. And she lost, then, if you can call it that, because of the random drawing to break the tie that went in her opponent's favor. And afterward, she said, "I'm my usual, angry, pissed-off self about the situation. Next time, I'm not going to lose." And it seems like it will take that kind of resilience and determination to accelerate those numbers and the pace of change. Third-- and I only have four-- I think those of us who have been fortunate enough to obtain high-profile roles as women leaders-- my own view is that we could afford to be more open about the doubts and the challenges that we face. Madeleine Albright I've always really admired for doing this. She has often talked about being the only woman at the table in policy debates and thinking-- and these are her words-- "OK, well, I don't think I'll say that. It might sound stupid. And then some man says it and everybody thinks it's completely brilliant. And you were so mad at yourself for not saying something." And that's Madeleine. Across male-dominated fields, women experience many of the same dynamics. But we don't always seek each other out to learn from one another. And I know that, while I never would have been the one to create this Wednesday group I told you about at the NSC, I'm so glad that one of my colleagues had the insight to do so. The busier one is, the less time one feels one has for such initiatives. But I think they offer consolation and inspiration at once. We women are often the jugglers if we happen to have kids. No amount of leaning in appears to have changed the fact that we are the ones likely to be orchestrating the carpool and making sure our kids brush their teeth properly. Sorry, I'm sure there are amazing male parents here. In my household, the modernity has not yet struck on these matters. He's out of town, so I can-- I get away with this. But feel free to bring it up the next time you see him at Harvard Law School. Some women perform the miracle juggle. I mean, most women perform the miracle juggle without advertising it, somehow managing their jobs or their home lives as if with their left hands, making it look easy from the outside. I have been incredibly lucky to have a lot of support for my juggle, including my mother and my parents. But I've never found it easy and have always-- or at least, since I've been in public life, advertised those challenges for what they're worth. The time I really started doing that was when I had a grueling confirmation hearing because of what I had written as an activist and an academic. It was very difficult to go before the US Senate and then have to answer for everything I'd said and written my entire life. So it was difficult. And the gavel sounded. Finally, it was over. And I prepared for it for weeks. And my four-year-old son jumped into my arms. I know. And he's such a ham. He was like, yay, I've been waiting for this my whole life. And a good few-- you can't see it, but basically, a scrum of reporters came and they start snapping this photo. And it was published in a good few newspapers. It's a lovely photo of my son. And it just captures my relief, I think, at surviving my confirmation hearing. But what amazed me about this was I started getting notes from all over the country, and even some from around the world, just saying how heartened they were to see somebody attempting a national security cabinet role with small children in tow. And again, I just didn't-- that wasn't my orientation. I didn't think in those terms, and then began to be much more public about some of the dimensions to my juggling. So this meant speaking about the inelegance of my efforts to work and mother at the same time. This was my approach, not the one I recommend for everybody. So I might have mentioned publicly several times how I breastfed my daughter while on the phone with the UN Secretary-General talking about a chemical weapons attack in Syria. Or the way in which-- in order to explain my absences to my boy, Declan, I taught him more about Vladimir Putin and Crimea than is probably healthy for a seven-year-old. But the point is, every woman has her own way of managing their very particular juggle and so too makes up her own mind-- the same true with working dads, of course, as well-- about how transparent to be about that challenge. My conscious decision, particularly in the wake of the reaction I had to this photo, was to overshare, which may be a weakness of mine. Fourth and finally, even amid the cruelty being perpetrated by our current president and the desire many of us have to change the whole world at once, I think figuring out how to be good with bite-sized contributions and doing what each of us can do, what is-- identifying and pursuing what is in each of our power to do. It's about what is one's specific difference. What is the specific difference each of us can make? And it is going to be millions of small contributions that ultimately produce the kind of equality that we seek. And here, it was a Martin Luther King-- I love Martin Luther King quotes, constantly been quoting them my whole life. But I had never seen this quote, but is now my favorite Martin Luther King quote, "Be a bush if you can't be a tree. If you can't be a highway, just be a trail. If you can't be a sun, be a star, for it isn't by size that you win or fail. Be the best at whatever you are." And here, inspired a little bit by a talk that Kathryn Sikkink gave on Tuesday, I would point to the simple act even of voting, which all citizens have it within their power to do. And focusing specifically on women, it is devastating to note that, while women still generally vote more than men in the United States, female turnout in 2016 was down when compared to 2004, 2008, and 2012. Given the stakes and the consequences that we're living every day, that's something we have got to remedy. And that's with the chance to elect even the first woman president in American history. We have to find a way to rally our family and friends, having worked so hard to secure for women a voice in American political life, encouraging women to raise that voice and insist that they be heard. In addition-- and this is just because I feel like every talk that's in any way about politics or public policy needs to address this in some fashion. But I think part, again, of our small contributions before we are able to make the big ones relates to political polarization. Speaking here directly to women, if we are mothers, we are talking incessantly about our kids to other mothers and fathers. Now, in the Republic of Cambridge, it may be that we don't-- there isn't a huge amount of diversity there. But in most communities, it is still-- there is more plurality in those communities than is reflected by our electoral maps. And I think, again, all of us, as people who are parts of families, want our leaders to solve practical problems for our families. So here, again, just we can all do better at trying to listen to one another and be prepared to change our minds, something that gets harder and harder given what is coming at us, trying to reclaim this world of facts and truth and putting our minds to the larger epistemological challenge of how we go about that and focusing on what unites us, which notwithstanding, again, the group of people that appear to want to go in a different direction, wanting security and dignity for our families and our communities really does-- it can unite the vast majority of people in this country. And in the spirit of talking about aspiring to breaking down some of the echo chambers in our country and our culture, I would note that this national reckoning that I've referred to and that is so much with us in so many spheres right now was kicked off by none other than Gretchen Carlson, a longtime Fox News anchor who, for many years, hosted Fox & Friends, Donald Trump's favorite TV show. And as a direct result of Carlson's bravery in coming forward with her stories of sexual harassment, Roger Ailes resigned as president of Fox. This started a domino effect that led to the dismissal of Bill O'Reilly and top network executives. And today, Gretchen Carlson is a major force behind pursuing bipartisan legislation that is now pending before Congress, which would invalidate unfair mandatory arbitration clauses that allow employers to cover up patterns of abuse by preventing employees from taking cases of sexual harassment to court. I would like to close and really look forward to the discussion. These are difficult times, to say the least. But America's history-- I need that back. I need that back. Can I have that back? Thank you. America's history is, of course, filled with difficult times. And women have always been among the first to rise. At the risk, again, of pandering at Radcliffe, the historian Gerda Lerner once counseled, "Always ask, what did the women do while the men were doing what the textbook tells us was important?" And here, just again in the realm of inspiring historical tidbits, 4,500 women launched campaigns for office before the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. And somewhat amazingly, given the times, more than 3,000 won those races. And Susanna Salter, who was the first woman ever elected mayor in the US, was put on the ballot in Kansas by a group of men who thought it would be a hilarious joke until she won 2/3 of the votes. So we think we have it bad. Women were a driving force in the movement to abolish slavery, and a century later, in the civil rights movement. We remember the names, of course, of Rosa Parks and Fannie Lou Hamer, Sojourner Truth. But women whose names never appeared in bold print also helped carry these movements, women like Alabama's Jo Ann Robinson, who mimeographed 35,000 leaflets the night of Rosa Parks' arrest to publicize the first bus boycott. And of course, when it came to fighting for equal pay, it was a woman, Lilly Ledbetter, who never gave up, even when the Supreme Court sided against her. She appealed all the way to President Obama, who signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009, helping restore protections for women against pay discrimination. It is clear that women and men must unite behind the cause of equality. It has been a year since the incredible women's marches. And we've just had the anniversary marches. My favorite sign was one hoisted by a middle-aged man. [LAUGHTER] I think that kind of says it all. "Not usually a sign guy, but geez." So influenced by Sign Guy, who I hope to meet someday, it does seem the right time to ask, what are each of us normally not that these times suddenly require us to be? And little girls like this one are counting on us to figure that out. So thank you. That's my daughter. [APPLAUSE] Thank you. - Is it time? - Yeah. - Hi. Thank you. - Please, yeah, if you could just introduce yourself, maybe, and-- - Sure. My name is Tanya [INAUDIBLE]. I'm a Harvard Radcliffe graduate, a concert pianist with interest in many disciplines. And I try to speak up in my hometown about issues, irregularities, process matters, et cetera. So I am going to also ask about a foreign policy question, which is the non-recognition of the Armenian Genocide. I do happen to be Armenian, but pretend I am Norwegian. I grew up in Turkey, so I have made my own peace with the issue. But I am concerned. I know that it can't be an easy matter in foreign policy because Turkey is a military ally and they don't want 1915 stuff recognized. What do you think? Wouldn't it be better if genocides were all recognized so that, A, they don't repeat, B, we call them genocide as they happen today, like the Rohingya? And maybe it explains more of what's going on in the Middle East today. Thank you. - Thank you very much. I agree with you. I think genocide should be recognized. I think when governments or people or institutions are put in a position where they have to contort and wiggle around and come up with euphemisms, I think therein madness lies. And we, as your question-- you're polite in the way you pose your question, but as your question suggests, we promised we were going to recognize the Armenian Genocide and we didn't. And if you ask me why, fundamentally, the president initially-- the right year to do it would have been 2009. We had promised on the campaign we'd just come off, rip the Band-Aid off, and just say to President Erdogan, sorry, I made this commitment and I keep my commitments. I mean, we were really motivated as an administration by the set of things that we had promised to do. But there was-- you might remember-- back in 2009, a nascent normalization process between Armenia and Turkey. And the president was convinced that doing so would potentially set back that in-the-region reckoning among the-- between the parties. To me, it seemed more like a ploy on the part of Turkey to get through April 24, 2009, the-- our first Armenian Genocide Remembrance Day occasion, where we should have recognized. And I think that history bore that out, that it ended up being not a normalization process to which there was real sincerity to make progress. Then the other occasion-- of course, we could have done it any year, but just the way government works, the other bite at the apple was really on the 100th anniversary when Pope Francis recognized and many countries and parliaments around the world. And there-- again, this isn't by way of excuse. But just to give you a sense of the context, we were just getting access to Turkish bases to fight against ISIS. And there was a fear that Erdogan, given his erratic way of dealing with everything and his anti-Americanism and so forth, would just-- would actually sooner have ISIS caliphate survive than allow Americans to use these bases in the wake of the genocide recognition. So this is why they pay-- President Obama didn't really pay them the big bucks. But these are really tough calls. But I think I come back to your first premise. It's just, in general-- it will serve you well over time if you-- if we as a government and if we as people-- if we tell the truth. Yep. - Yes, hi, my-- [CLEARS THROAT] Sorry, I have a sore throat. My name is Ann Eldridge. And I wanted to ask a question about relationships between men and women in the diplomatic service and in national security in general. I happen to have a classmate-- class of 1957-- who is a retired diplomat. And she was married to a classmate who was also a diplomat and served-- they both served in many areas of the world. And actually, her career-- starting out in the 1960s doing this-- is just replete with the kinds of challenges that you described, including being told that, well, he has this position and we thought you were coming along to be his secretary. But I happened to be reading her memoir, which just came out this year, just at the time that Vice President Pence was talking about how it is impossible to get into the elevator with a woman who is not Mother. And the situations that you describe in which men so vastly outnumber women and women have to face situations where they will be the only woman in a context, and then adding onto that, the uneasiness that is now pervading the whole question of male-female relationships-- what if I say this? What if I do that? I just wonder if you could comment on strategies that can address those kinds of challenges. - Your answer's probably-- and the answer of people here would be better than mine, maybe people who have reflected on this more. I think the sensitization by virtue of the public conversation is already a step. And I think that, right now, if you take just one institution which is where the diplomatic corps lives, it would have been great if Secretary Tillerson, as part of this conversation, had come out-- He's so focused on the State Department and the building and the positions and the Foreign Service, but to make this a feature of that, which I think is way too inward-looking. I think he's way too inward-looking generally. I wish he'd tell us what wars he wants to end and problems he wants to solve in the world. But since he's not that guy, at least if he's going to deal with bureaucracy and make that his passion, this is something that you can deal with incentives and disincentives and structures and airings. But it's very hard to do that when Donald Trump is your president. And so that's why when it comes to, at least, the diplomatic world, even though it feels like you can have a conversation hived off from politics, it's about getting rid of people who aren't dedicated to figuring out how to manage this issue. It really is about-- and I think-- there have been interesting writings. Jake Sullivan, who was Secretary Clinton's policy guy in the campaign is one of the most impressive people I met in my eight years in government. He came out in the wake of some of the kinds of disclosures that I referenced today and just talked about himself. Now, I would see him as in the upper 1% of 1% of enlightened, progressive men that I came across in government. And there are many, but I mean really top tier. And yet, he was the one-- he writes a long piece saying, here are all the ways in which I failed, because it isn't enough just to be progressive and then neutral when that culture, which is so subtle and hard to break through in, exists around me. And so here's a list of the kinds of things I wish I had done as a progressive guy while I was in a position of power. He was Secretary Clinton's deputy chief of staff and then was on the campaign. So I refer you to that article. I mean, I think we have to change our leadership. And then our leadership needs to find a way to be more proactive. But one of the reasons I mention all the feeder information about think tanks and media and panels and-- that in this world of diplomacy, it really would make a difference if we started having an equal number of people doing national security PhDs at the Kennedy School, and if we started also internalizing in our hiring the kinds of different decisions women have to make at different parts in their career and then make it easier for them to hop back in if they've taken time out, let's say, to have a baby or something. Anyway, so there's a lot one can say. But I think the first thing we have to do is just-- it's back to politics, unfortunately. - Jay [? Gleason. ?] You're right that it would be nice if Secretary Tillerson would tell us how he wants to end the war in Libya, which Barack Obama has called the worst mistake of his presidency. You and Susan Rice and the woman that you once referred to as a monster, Hillary Clinton, were leading advocates for that assault on Libya, whereas at the same time, men in the cabinet, like Bob Gates and Tom Donilon and then John Brennan were very much reluctant to take on that type of intervention. So I can't help but wonder whether women are becoming worse warmongers and cold-blooded killers than men are. - Well the number of factual inaccuracies that are implicit or that were stated in your question do make me question whether you were in the room with all this vivid detail about who was on what side because much of what's been written is inaccurate. But let me talk about the intervention in Libya, which seems to be the-- if I gather, the focus of your question. So in Libya, we had a circumstance that we were confronted with, which is that you had people who had risen up against a dictator who was threatening to hunt the people down like cockroaches, who had turned its sights on Benghazi, which was where the revolution had started, and where tens of thousands of peaceful protesters were gathering every night in the main square. The Arab League called-- had a meeting, an unprecedented meeting, where it expelled Libya from the Arab League and called for the world, the international community to use all necessary means to protect civilians. Then the British and the French proposed a no-fly zone. Gaddafi-- we don't need to-- Gaddafi wasn't using his planes to carry out atrocities. All the evidence we had was that it was his militia on the ground who were hunting people down. And a no-fly zone basically would not be effective. So we went to the United Nations, which other than 9/11, basically had not authorized the use of force to protect civilians in more than two decades. And amazingly, the UN Security Council, the arbiter of international law, authorizes the use of all necessary measures to protect civilians, partly because they knew what Gaddafi was capable of and what he was explicitly stating he was going to do. So the president then joined with a coalition of countries in order to carry out the intervention called for by the Arab League, by the UN Security Council, and by the Libyan resistance. As it happened, in the wake of the intervention, one of the things that the same people had been calling for intervention were absolutely adamant about was no foreign presence, no foreign troops, no foreign police, no nothing. And in the wake of what was initially a very beautiful time where independent media flowered, civil society, women's organizations, and the scrum of politics turned very tribal, very messy, and with a division-- a profound division within the society between Islamists and a more secular model. And Libya's in a terrible state today and people are suffering the consequences of what amounts to a civil war, a low-grade civil war with ISIS also now at the foothold. I think the challenge-- and I'm reckoning with this along with everything else-- is knowing what we knew on the front end. All we knew was what we knew. And we knew also-- there are other people in line also who are going to want to speak. But in the wake of 800,000 people getting killed in Rwanda, given how explicit Gaddafi was. And given what I really do believe to be the case, which is had we not-- what you would have, I believe, is the massacre, which would have been pretty ugly. But no one will know. It's a counterfactual. I have no idea how bad it would have been. Maybe it would have been better than Gaddafi himself was saying he wanted to make it. And you would not have Libya of the pre-revolution Libya. It's not like you'd have a stable Libya today. Look at Syria. There's an example of no intervention. And is that a stable place where those kinds of divisions-- - All kinds of intervention in Syria. - I'm sorry? - There's all kinds of intervention in Syria, direct and proxy. In the UNSC 1973 did not call for regime change. You can't cite anywhere where it said regime change. The AU-- - But for all neccessary measures to protect civilians. - The AU-- - OK, I think I've given you the best answer I can. - --and the Arab league did not call for regime change. - We're good. All right. Thanks for coming. Hope you enjoyed it. - Hi, I'm Robert Cooper. I love that photo of all the male Secretaries-General of the UN. And I wondered if you have any comment on the last selection process where there were several qualified women candidates. My personal favorite, since I'm from New Zealand, would've been Helen Clark. But there were several candidates. I wonder if you have any insights on that process. - I have big insights, because the United States-- fortunately for the United States-- gets to be very central to it. And within that process, the 15 members of the Security Council choose the successor to Ban Ki-moon, chose the successor to Ban Ki-moon. And because the five permanent members have a veto, well, ultimately, the United States has more than 1/15, probably, of influence in all of this. So this process, for the very first time, was public and transparent. And for the first time, the candidates for Secretary-General had to perform and answer questions before the broader membership of the General Assembly, which I will say I did not think would necessarily-- I thought it was the right thing to do, of course, in terms of legitimacy and broader ownership, but I didn't necessarily think it would produce a better outcome. I thought there'd be a fair amount of grandstanding and-- but it really was-- it really changed the dynamic. And it meant that, among the-- and I forget now-- I think it was 11 candidates we had, more women competed this time-- I think five or six women competed-- than all the prior races for all the other secretary generalship combined. So that was the other thing about making it public and having an emphasis on having a woman Secretary-General. There was a group of countries that was constituted called the Friends of a Woman Secretary-General, and really banging the drum about the importance of having a lot of women candidates and-- with the hope that we would-- we, the 15, and specifically the five permanent, would end up with a woman Secretary-General. So these public debates meant that each of these candidates, including Helen Clark-- everybody performed. And weirdly, countries as diverse as Saudi Arabia, France, Togo, Thailand-- they all came out of those sessions believing that Guterres was heads and shoulders-- or heads and tails, however you say it-- above the rest in terms of his qualification. He's a former prime minister and former head of the UN Refugee Agency. One of the interesting things was the main thing he had to answer for, he was very explicit about it-- he's like, I'm not a woman. And I think, basically, if I weren't running, I would think that there should be a woman Secretary-General. But here's what I've done for women throughout my career. And half his cabinet when he was prime minister was women. All of his senior-- not all. I think it was a slim majority of his senior appointments when he was head of the Refugee Agency were women. So he had an account, not just on appointments, but also on policies about what he had done for women. And in the end, while the United States had-- there were more than one candidate that we would have supported as Secretary-General, Guterres was the only one that we could get all five of those countries to agree upon. So a couple of the other women-- and I'm not going to out my colleagues on the Security Council. But a couple of the other women who we thought were very compelling were voted against by permanent members, which basically-- so they're [? doomed. ?] Now, you could say, well, does this mean only the guys are going to be the consensus candidates? Because these guys-- I was one of 15-- these guys casting the ballots. I think in this case what shocked me is that Russia was prepared to live with Guterres, somebody who had a record of pushing for human rights and women's rights, very-- just a very progressive politician. But the fact that we actually had the broader pool and it felt like a level-- I mean, given the record I've describe, this is hard to say. But it felt like people were being judged on the basis of how they, for instance, answered questions about the Libya intervention or answered questions about-- they weren't asked about the Armenian Genocide. People had to perform and show their capabilities and lay out a program for what they were going to do. And it has to be said, Guterres is the one now who's going to-- the Secretary-General is the one who's going have to deal with this-- the Guardian expose and all the allegations of abuse and harassment. But he has also just announced that, for the first time, the senior appointments within the UN are completely 50/50. I think it's-- where's Adam? Is it 50-50 or a little more-- yeah, basically even a majority, now, of women. Ban Ki-moon was very outspoken on these issues. But if you look at the gap between the words and the actual appointments, there's a big gap. So that's an example of a campaign promise that Guterres has already kept within a year of arriving in the job. - Hi, first off, I think it's an honor. I didn't think I'd ever be asking you a question. I admire you so much. So my question-- [APPLAUSE] - Thank you. - I just want to say that-- and I've read your first book during my time in undergrad. I focused a lot on the Syrian crisis. But my question is about Syria, specifically President Assad, who is a war criminal. My question is, will we ever be able to hold him accountable for these attacks? And there's now recent reports that there's other chemical attacks happening in eastern-- is it Ghouta? - Ghouta, yeah. - Those questions that-- so really, my question there is, will there ever be a solution there? This conflict continues to happen and we're talking about fighting ISIL. But you will not ultimately, in my opinion, defeat ISIL until you solve the Assad problem. So that's my question. - Thank you, [INAUDIBLE]. - But it's such an honor to be here. So thank you. - Thank you very much, sir. Thank you. Let me take your question, though, in two parts, because the first question was on Assad's personal accountability, and then the second, more the structural question about whether the regime and-- so first, on accountability, I mean, right now, he's operating with a sense of-- and has been for some time-- operating with a sense of great impunity. Fundamentally, the economic sanctions that have been put in place, the tools in the toolbox that are about de-legitimation and stigma-- those just-- those have had no impact on him. Now, whether military force-- taking to heart the point that the earlier question addressed, which is military force is a very uncertain tool. And you can't deal with these underlying fissures and cleavages in the society. So whether that would have made a difference, we don't know. And that's, again, something I'm going to have to grapple with in the book that I'm writing and President Obama himself is grappling with in the memoir that he's writing. But we tried-- I tried, when I was ambassador, to bring an international criminal court referral to the Security Council, because that's when-- since Assad's not going to refer himself, and because Syria is not a state party, the court has no jurisdiction to say, hey, there's a guy running a country who's killing his people and gassing these people. So I tried that and Russia vetoed it, one of a half-dozen vetoes that Russia extended on Syria while I was at the Security Council. And so it's tempting, in the wake of that, to think, he's got Russia and Iran behind him. He's winning on the battlefield. Military force is not going to be employed, which is the one, maybe, coercive tool that hasn't been tried. Maybe it could make a difference. And so this guy is-- whatever, home free. There's not a lot of history that cuts in that direction, which isn't to say that tomorrow there's going to be some big turn of fortune for him. My first career, as I mentioned, was in the Balkans. And if you had told me when I left to come here to go to law school here that Slobodan Milosevic would end up in prison by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia, or Ratko Mladic, who just seemed invulnerable in very similar ways-- and again, very different set of circumstances. NATO did get involved on the ground in Yugoslavia. That made a big difference. But what tends to happen, even in countries where you don't have something like you had in the Balkans, is just the infighting and the rivalries within the administration itself combined with what we have now, which we didn't have initially back then, which is the documentation and the preservation of evidence, , means that it is less likely to be a foreign plucking or imposition of something and more likely to be some kind of internal fissure at some point. But that's not very satisfying to people who are-- have been victims. 400,000, 500,000 people have been killed, it looks like, in Syria, as you say, the gas attacks, this genie out of the bottle that we thought was squarely sealed in there from the time of Saddam Hussein. So the larger question before one could even imagine this infighting or Assad meeting his political demise and then potentially getting extradited to face justice is the question of a political solution to what's happening in Syria. And Liz mentioned The Final Year, this movie that has just come out about Obama's last year where Obama and his team granted almost full access, basically, to a team of filmmakers. And one of the things that's captured in the film that's kind of the heart of the film is Syria. And the efforts that Secretary Kerry made are-- because it only captures the final year, it only shows him in the final year to get Russia, Iran, the Europeans, the Arabs, the Gulf Arabs, everybody under the same tent to try to put enough pressure on the opposition and on the regime. And when you see this film, I mean, there are-- if nothing else, it'll just make you love John Kerry. You see him, at times, staggering up the stairs, just so exhausted because he's been going from a Yemen meeting to a Paris climate meeting, Cuba normalization, Syria. And again, it's A for effort. But none of us-- we didn't get the results that we wanted. And yet, the one way I know we will not have a solution for Syria is for none of that effort to occur. And that's the world we're in now, where-- the way international diplomacy works for now, before China begins to flex its muscles, as it will at some point in these areas-- but it's like a pickup-- it's like pickup basketball. Someone is picking people and pulling them into the tent and putting forward political agreements. We have a military, a tactical approach to defeating ISIS. As you said, we have nothing, as the United States or the broader international community, aimed at getting at the underlying causes of ISIS. And that just has to change. And I'm hopeful-- the only hope I have is that our military, which has performed so ably in achieving this very important tactical victory of ending the caliphate, in my experience-- and the same Chairman of the Joint Staff today was the one that we had, Joe Dunford, who's superb. But in my experience in the situation we're in, whether on Libya or Syria or anything else, it's the military saying, where's the governance? How are we going to deal with the underlying causes of why people went into ISIS in the first place? Because they know it's just whack-a-mole with military force alone. And so maybe that's the-- the tail will wag the dog eventually and we'll start to get some diplomacy out of this administration. - --ask their questions because we're going to have to-- - No problem. - Just hear their questions and then-- - Yeah, I'll take all your questions and I'll write down my yes/no answers. - Hi, Liam deClive-Lowe, aspiring political organizer and undergraduate student here at the Harvard Extension School. In your presentation, you talked about this surge in candidates, especially women candidates, who are now running for office. And obviously, in those elections, foreign policy's an enormously complex issue that has a huge impact on the way that people vote. So based on your experience, what is your advice to this new slew of candidates about how to talk about foreign policy on the campaign trail? And number two, do you have any plans to join those ranks of candidates as one yourself, potentially, in the future? - I did until that guy scared me off. I thought I-- - My name's [INAUDIBLE]. I'm a woman in tech. And the work that you're doing in terms of emphasizing the importance of women in various roles is super critical. You've been personally a great role model for me, whether you meant it or not. So it's great to be here. My question for you is about the comment you made at the end regarding truth and facts, which has been such a challenge for us. I do think it's the biggest risk for democracy for us. What are your thoughts regarding the responsibility that tech companies have? And what's the role of government in that? Thank you so much. - Thank you very much. - Hi, thank you. My name is Guy. I'm a genocide survivor from Darfur. Before coming to America, I lived in Israel also for five years. And then I'm currently an asylum seeker in the United States. Thank you for your magnificent contribution to this global society. My question is, America has contributed to the world so much, but we still have our problems. I have some classmates that I ask. And your thoughts on America's contribution to the global society makes them a little bit uncomfortable because they feel like they have given so much. What is a better way that we can do and stop all these crises that are happening outside America? And also, where America stands today, and the crises that are happening in Libya, the slave trade and torture that is happening-- I don't know if you saw it. Yesterday it was on the news. I don't want to take too much time. But for also the international community-- the International Criminal Court, the ICC, has issued a warrant for arrest-- to arrest al-Bashir, the president of Sudan. But these guys are still moving from country to country. Who is responsible in implementing the court order of the ICC? Thank you. Thank you so much. Hi, I'm Hans Schattle. I teach in the political science department at Yonsei University in Seoul, South Korea. But New England's my home, so it's really nice to see you here in person. I followed your career trajectory back in the early 1990s. I was working as a news reporter locally at the time here in Massachusetts. And it was really something to see your dispatches in the Boston Globe during the Bosnian War, and of course, everything that's followed. One of my big frustrations in international relations is that we talk so much about balance of power, and understandably so, but we give correspondingly little airtime to the idea of balancing responsibility. So I'm wondering, in your years in government, and especially at the United Nations in the last few years, did you come away from that time with any new insights that could inspire us a little bit about how we might think more comprehensively, maybe holistically, about how to manage responsibilities on issues, global warming, migrants, refugees? We could, of course, talk about R2P and the difficulty in rehabilitating that concept after Libya. I mean, IR now is so much bigger than just diplomacy, foreign ministries. We have corporations. Look at Davos this week, NGOs, schools and universities, churches, everyday citizens on Twitter. And There's so much out there and I feel as if there's a lot of work in the field that's still ahead of us in terms of consolidating our thinking about how we can solve problems more effectively that transcend nation states. And of course, the UN is our-- it's the best venue we've got, but it only goes so far. So any thoughts on that would be really great. Great. Thank you. Great, OK. Wonderful. Thank you all. And thanks for staying through all of this. It's OK if you have to leave, too. So first, for the aspiring political organizer-- Liam, I think you said your name was-- we learned yesterday at Radcliffe, through-- or two days ago at Radcliffe that only 24% of eligible Harvard students had voted in the midterm election in 2014. Aspiring political organizer, there's a task for you. Why don't we all chip in and figure out how we can get that up just way, way higher, as something we can do in the here and now? But your question was about how to talk about foreign policy. And I guess I would acknowledge that we have-- we, the Obama administration, did not crack that code, it's fair to say. The fact that we now have not only the Trump base with "America First" and this kind of discredited political ideology that has lived within our political ecosystem for more than a hundred years, but the fact that that is now governing and that we're pulling out of the kinds of things that put my world view to one side, but just as a matter of pragmatism, are needed, whether on climate or on terrorism, alienating our allies or insulting our allies, and thus really jeopardizing our ability to call on them when we need them, whether in the context of international framework or even just bilaterally. So the fact that it's on the left and the right-- and I'm not a believer in false equivalence, because only one party is governing and doing these things. But the left wing of the Democratic Party is not very enthusiastic about-- or some of them, anyway, are not very enthusiastic about the kinds of investments in our national security, whether in the form of our military or our diplomacy or in terms of international engagements. And so this-- these wings are very different. And one has a much more inclusive model and doesn't have the xenophobia and racism or any of that stuff. But in terms of the belief of the balance between the domestic enterprise and all that is left to be done here at home and what we do abroad, there ends up being an overlap, at times, in prescription. So that worries me a lot. And on communications, I've talked to some of my favorite members of Congress about this. We have to find a way to talk about climate that feels relevant to people's lives here. And it won't be by talking about the Paris Agreement. And some people ask me sometimes about my book and is there a thesis undergirding it. And the only thing I can tell you is I will not-- the words "liberal international order" will not appear in my book. I aspire in telling stories to reach people. Yes, that is my unconcealed worldview, is that we have to invest in our common security and our common humanity. But I've got to find a way and we've got to find a way to communicate that in a manner that's accessible beyond our like-minded cohort. So I don't have a great answer. But I think this question of how to communicate, how to talk about foreign policy is really important. And we went through this on Ebola. One thing President Obama did, which I really admired at the time, but I think has to be supplemented, is people were in full-on panic in this country about Ebola. You remember when patient Duncan died in Texas and some of the nurses got infected. And the polling was horrific, even in democratic districts, of people wanting to close our doors and not even let health workers come back into this country or to quarantine them when they came back in. And this was at a time where more Americans had married Kardashians than had died of Ebola, right? And so President Obama didn't say what I just said, which would-- of course, you're not going to-- I went to West Africa in the middle of the Ebola crisis. I was scared. I mean, fear is-- it's a legitimate thing that one can feel. But how to meet people where they are and-- if you just, whether on terrorism, refugees, Ebola, climate-- if you just cite statistics for people, a lot of people, that's good enough. But there's a group that aren't-- the Trump base, but of people who can be convinced, but whom we have not brought into the fold, for whom statistics and just the facts aren't meeting them viscerally where they are when they are feeling those fears, which of course are stoked, then, by people who shouldn't be-- who should know better. In terms of tech companies, let me-- let me just acknowledge, I think, the importance of the question in the following way. People ask us about the Russia interference, which I'm surprised I haven't been asked about, and with good reason. And they ask, should we have done more? And should Obama have come out and not just the intelligence agencies before the election? And all the rest and-- we're all going to be asking ourselves questions about what we might have done differently. But one thing I just want to convey is when we-- so cyber security and cyber threats by foreign nations is something that we have developed over the last decade, plus an infrastructure within the US national security establishment to deal with, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Defense Department, intelligence in terms of who's doing what. When it comes to fake news and ad buys and your-- the de-centralized world of your existence and other citizens' existence, whether here or anywhere else, there's no obvious government lever. And that's why this conversation that's happening in Silicon Valley, as unsatisfying as I have found it up to this point, really is a conversation that should have been happening four or five years ago. And we should have done everything in our power-- we should have done more to try to catalyze that conversation. But fundamentally, it's going to be on that community of people to make things happen. And then I just merged the last two questions because [? Gees' ?] question was on how to stop crises and share burdens better, and then the other was on balance of responsibility, which I think also is another version of burden-sharing. Part of the answer to the first question about how you sell foreign policy in a broader way will entail being able to better describe what the international order is buying us. And Donald Trump has had this worldview throughout his life. He has not changed at all. He feels like we are getting ripped off. And he has found something, again, in his base, but also in others who have supported him and now may have-- maybe have melted away. But we need to show-- for instance, in my world of UN peacekeeping, everybody focuses on the fact that it's a $8.5 billion budget for UN peacekeepers, 100,000 UN peacekeepers in the world, and we pay 28% of that. They don't focus on the fact that 72% is paid for by other countries. And moreover, the troops who actually are peacekeepers, who are risking their lives and dying at record rates almost never come from the United States. We have a tiny percentage of that. Climate, I think we made good headway. But responsibility is something you hear a lot from the biggest emitters, from China and India. And their conception of responsibility is historical, which is really important. If you're them, you're like, wait a minute. How can we just start caring about climate when we are now needing coal in order to develop and deal with our growing populations? And I think what we succeeded in doing, partly by leveraging the relationships that Obama had built with Xi and with Modi, is for the first time now we have a language about responsibility that is lateral and in the present about emissions as being what dictates your responsibility. But we still have to acknowledge the historical and the disparities and so forth there. So I think a lot of creative thinking needs to be done. And the questions that emphasize language and framing are right because we have to do better. If we are going to go forward and actually be able to execute a worldview that is rooted in the sense that we are connected and that it is in our interests, also, to look out for others, whether at home or abroad, we're going to have to sell that. Thank you. [APPLAUSE] [MUSIC PLAYING]


  1. ^ 《中央军委关于统一全军组织及部队番号的规定》,
This page was last edited on 23 November 2019, at 07:52
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.